Madras High Court
V.Srinivasan vs State Of Tamilnadu on 17 December, 2021
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
and
W.M.P.Nos.25742 and 27780 of 2021
1.V.Srinivasan
2.G.Padma
3.Annusuya
4.N.Hemavathi ... Petitioners
vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu
Represented by
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Civil Aviation,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3.The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Chennai – 600 001.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
4.The Revenue Divisional Offier,
(Chennai South),
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
5.The General Manager,
Southern Railways,
Southern Railways Headquarters Building,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents
(R5 – impleaded as per order dated 07.08.2018
in W.M.P.No.2854 of 2018 in W.P.No.4125 of 2017)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the Order of the 1st respondent in Notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 06.08.1958 in
G.O.R.No.970, P.W.(General) dated 26th July 1958 in respect of land bearing
Survey No.317/1B and quash the same in so far as the petitioners' land is
concerned and consequently declare that the Land Acquisition proceeding
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the petitioners'
land comprised in Survey No.317/1B in Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk,
Chengalpet District measuring an extent of 6.49 acres, have become lapsed
as per Section 24(2)f of the Act, 2013.
For Petitioners : Mr.Antony R.Julian
for Mr.M.B.Dominique
For R1, R3 and R4 : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham
Special Government Pleader
2/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
For R2 : Mr.T.L.Thirumalaisamy
Central Government Standing Counsel
For R5 : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 1 st respondent
in Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 06.08.1958 in G.O.R.No.970, P.W.(General) dated 26th
July 1958 in respect of land bearing Survey No.317/1B and quash the same
in so far as the petitioners' land is concerned and consequently declare that
the Land Acquisition proceeding initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 in respect of the petitioners' land comprised in Survey No.317/1B in
Velachery Village, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District measuring an extent
of 6.49 acres, have become lapsed as per Section 24(2)f of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Re-Settlement Act, 2013.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners challenged the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in
G.O.Ms.No.31 dated 06.08.1958 issued by the 1st respondent in
G.O.R.No.970, P.W.(General) dated 26.07.1958, thereby proposed to
acquire the land ad-measuring to an extent of 8.36 acres in Velachery
Village for a public purpose, to wit, for the construction of a V.O.R. Station.
However, even after six decades, the subject land has not been acquired and
taken possession by the Government till date. The respondents have neither
entered into the land nor effected any modification or construction or put up
any sign board or indication in the subject land.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the
4(1) notification, the owners of the extent of 6.49 acres mentioned as
Gopalsamy Iyer, Venkatrama Iyer, Ramachandra Iyer and Subramania Iyer.
None of these persons shown as owners except Ramachandra Iyer was ever
in possession at any point of time subsequent to 1925. Since the partition
was effected between the three sons of P.S.Ganapathy Iyer. The said
P.S.Ganapathy Iyer was the original owner of an extent of 63.78 acres in
S.No.317/1 in Velachery Village. After his demise on 06.09.1915, his three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
sons viz., Venkatrama Iyer, Krishnasamy Iyer and Ramachandra Iyer became
the absolute owners of the said extent and they were in possession and
enjoyment of the same. The said Ramachandra Iyer sold his entire share of
21.26 acres to the petitioners' father by the sale deed dated 29.11.1957
registered vide Document No.3307 of 1957. Till his demise, he was in
absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property and dealt with the
same by sold out portion of the said land to various persons.
4. He further submitted that as per notification dated 06.08.1958,
no possession of the subject land has been taken by the respondents and the
subject land is still in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. That
apart, no compensation has been paid to any one of the petitioners or their
father, viz., A.S.V.Varadhachariar. Even after the lapse of 60 years, the land
notified in the Gazette publication was not acquired by the Government and
there has been no other notification at all in respect of the land
ad-measuring 6.49 acres. The land was sought to be acquired for the
purpose of constructing V.O.R. Station by the Government of India and no
V.O.R. Station was constructed in the said land till today. The land remains
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
vacant and the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject
land as the legal heirs of the said A.S.V.Varadhachariar. Therefore, the
petitioners made a representation dated 30.10.2016 before the 1st to 3rd
respondents and no reply was received from the authorities concerned.
5. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013, the land
acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents in respect of the subject
land is deemed to have been lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Re-Settlement Act, 2013.
6. Per contra, the 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit dated
07.09.2017, revealed that the 4(1) notification published under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the property comprised in S.No.317/1B
stood registered in the names of Gopala Iyer, Venkatrama Iyer,
Ramachandra Iyer and Subramania Iyer. After following due procedure, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
award was passed on 15.11.1959 in Award No.5/59 for installing a radio
navigational facility known as 'Very High Frequency Omni Directional
Range' (VOR Station) on behalf of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. As per the
award dated 15.11.1959, the compensation amount of Rs.1198.11/- was
awarded and the said amount was deposited in the Court and since there
were disputes between the ownership of the land. The acquired land was
taken possession by the Government and is vested with the Government free
from all encumbrances from the date of passing of award dated 15.11.1959.
7. It is further revealed that the 4(1) notification was approved on
23.05.1958 and was duly published in the Government Gazette on
09.07.1958. During the process of award, one of the interested persons, viz.,
Sri Subramania Iyer appeared for enquiry and has stated that the portions of
the land sub-divided among the owners and he had requested time. In fact,
the time was granted and further enquiry was conducted on 14.10.1959 and
the father of the petitioners, viz., A.S.V.Varadachariar appeared for enquiry
and represented that the portion of the land under acquisition comprised in
S.No.317/1 does not belong to him. Therefore, the then Revenue Divisional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
Officer, Saidapet Division has concluded that there were disputes between
the ownership and the compensation amount of Rs.1198.11/- was deposited
in the Court as contemplated under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Further concluded that the land in the Southern portion of
S.No.317/1 was purchased by the petitioners' father from
Thiru.Ramachandra Iyer. Therefore, in the Award No.5/59 dated 15.11.1959,
the award was passed in the names of legal heirs of Ganapathy Iyer, viz.,
Gopala Iyer, Venkatrama Iyer, Ramachandra Iyer, Subramania Iyer and the
petitioners' father viz., A.S.V.Varadhachariar and since there were disputes
in the ownership and compensation amount of Rs.1198.11/- was deposited
in the Court.
8. It is further revealed that the acquired land was taken
possession by the Government and is vested with the Government since free
from all encumbrances from the date of passing of award dated 15.11.1959.
In C.R.O.P.No.19 of 1960 filed by the Referring Officer viz., Revenue
Divisional Officer, Saidapet Division as against the aforesaid persons, the
Court had ordered on 07.04.1963 that in the result, there would be an order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
directing that the compensation amount in deposit is to be paid to 5th
claimant (the petitioner's father viz., A.S.V.Varadachariar). The claimants 1
to 4 are entitled to costs from 5th claimant. The 7th claimant would bear his
cost.
9. It is further revealed that as per G.O.Ms.No.478 Revenue LD
4(2) Department dated 27.10.2001, the Chief Engineer, Metropolitan
Transport Project (Railways) has requested for allotment of land for the
establishment of Velachery Railway Station in Velachery Village,
Mambalam-Guindy Taluk under the Mass Rapid Transit System Scheme.
The lands comprised in S.No.317/1B are in the name of 'Government
poramboke V.O.R. Station' in the revenue records. These lands were
acquired in the year 1959 and now it is under the control of Airport
Authority of India. Pending land transfer proposal, the Airport Authority of
India has given prior entry permission to the Railway Authorities. The
District Revenue Officer has inspected the land on 06.10.2003. As per his
report, the Railways Department have stored construction materials in the
proposed site. There are no valuable trees and encroachments in the site.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
There is a small building in dilapidated condition. As the demolition charges
will be higher than the building cost, the building value was not fixed. The
Additional General Manager, Airport Authority of India has consented to
the transfer of land to Railways Department on collection of market value.
10. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent has recommended the
resumption of land from the Airport Authority of India and transferring it in
favour of the Railways Department for Mass Rapid Transit System Scheme.
The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration had
recommended for the proposal of the District Collector for resumption of
lands measuring to an extent of 8.36 acres comprised in S.No.317/1B in
Velachery Village from the Airport Authority of India and transfer to
Railway Authorities at the rate of Rs.132.30 per sq.feet under Revenue
Standing Order No.23 with usual conditions. The Government on scrutiny
of the proposal have decided to accept the recommendation of the 3rd
respondent, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land
Administration directed subject lands are resumed from the Airport
Authority of India and transferred to Railways Department for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
construction of Velachery Railway Station for MRTS Phase II Scheme under
Revenue Standing Order No.23 with usual conditions. Accordingly, the
subject land is in possession of the 5th respondent.
11. While pending the writ petition, this Court appointed the
Advocate Commissioner to inspect the subject land and the learned
Advocate Commissioner filed a report dated 08.10.2018, revealed that it is
lying vacant and there is no sign of any construction or possession of the
land by anybody. A new pucca tar road starting from Velachery Main Road
and of a width of 60 feet runs to a distance of about 300 meters and ends at
the western boundary of the surveyed land. It continues as a road across the
subject matter of the property.
12. Therefore, the petitioners are never in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property. As stated supra, the entire land has been
taken over and now the 5th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the
same, after laying tar road across the subject property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
13. As stated supra, the compensation amount has already
deposited in the Court as contemplated under Section 31 (2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 for the subject land. Therefore, the petitioners failed
to prove their case on hand. These issues are already settled by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and ors etc., which held as follows :-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of
commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of Act of 2013.
2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered by
an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue
as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under
the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
3. The word or used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as nor or as and.
The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to
inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not
been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words,
in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has
been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no
lapse.
4. The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of
compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is
provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been
deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all
beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for
land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of
the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as
on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4
of the Act of 1894.
5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of
1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed
under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of
compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who
had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference
for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of
2013.
6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is
to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section
24(1)(b).
7. The mode of taking possession under the Act of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing
of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed
on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the
land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section
24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken
there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession
and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of
2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition
pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period
of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
excluded in the computation of five years.
9. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of
2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking
possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to
be dismissed.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
17.12.2021
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
To
1.State of Tamilnadu
Represented by
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Civil Aviation,
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3.The District Collector,
Chennai District,
Chennai – 600 001.
4.The Revenue Divisional Offier,
(Chennai South),
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
5.The General Manager,
Southern Railways,
Southern Railways Headquarters Building,
Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dm
W.P.No.4125 of 2017
17.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
